9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waste/Synthetic waste is classifiable under Tariff Item 18-IV as held by the Department or under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Act med by the party for the purpose of countervailing duty, in addition to the issue whether Department was justified in discarding the invoice value and ordering for confiscation of the goods as well as imposing penalty in all these cases. He said that appellants have placed order for supply of wool waste, but by mistake the supplier has sent Synthetic waste. Department was wrong in classifying the item as Acrylic Fibre instead of Acrylic waste or synthetic waste. He said that item was tested and retested and referring to the test reports, he said that the sample is in the form of heterogenious m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 12-12-1993 in Writ Petition No. 7044-7046 of 1982. 10.Supreme Court Judgment dated 6-1-1995 in C.A. No. 4179/88 in the case of Collector v. M/s Punjab Processors. 11. Supreme Court Judgment dated 13-1-1995 in C.A. No. 242-306/95 in the case of Collector v. Punjab Processors. He referred to the order of the High Court of Madras on the Writ Petition filed by the appellants in Appeal No. C/362/82-D wherein it was directed by the High Court as per W.P. Nos. 7044 to 7046/1982, dated 17-12-1993 that Assistant Collector is to assess the duty under Entry 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act for the relevant period and petitioner will thereafter pay the duty as assessed under Entry 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Further Division Bench o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s penalty the Department was justified in imposing the same since the appellants have misdeclared the goods. They have declared as wool waste but imported Synthetic waste and since Synthetic waste was not covered by valid licence, hence the Department was right in initiating action under Section 111(d) as well as under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act and, accordingly, Department was justified in ordering confiscation as well as imposing penalty for misdeclaration and contravening the provisions of the Central Excise law. He said that issue with reference to confiscation as well as determination of quantum of penalty may also be remanded to the concerned Authority for reconsideration. In reply, Shri Harbans Singh submitted that in similar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inasmuch as contravention of Section 111(d) as well as under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. We hold that Department was justified in ordering for confiscation and imposing penalty. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that quantum of fine as well as penalty requires to be reduced. Accordingly, redemption fine is reduced to 5% of the C.I.F. value as against 10% redemption fine in all the cases and as far as penalty is concerned, it is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- as against Rs. 45,000/- as per common impugned order in Appeals No. C/263/83-D and C/283 to 288/92/D, Rs. 10,000/- as against Rs. 30,000/- in Appeal No. C/362/82-D and Rs. 25,000/- as against Rs. 75,000/- in Appeal No. 268/83-D and 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
